Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, first of all, the material cause as you defined it is simply the composition. So, I am a biological creature and my composition is that of such a creature.

For someone who claims that Aristotle's causes have been superceeded, you sure don't understand what they actually are. Material cause is simply the stuff(which is actually the best translation from Greek) out of which something is made without regard to its specific form or origin.

Mathematical objects are NOT 'objects' in the sense of this discussion: they have no causal influence at all and are, in essence, language constructs.

That's a highly debatable assertion. I do not believe that atheists accept the nominalist/conceptualist position on its merits. Nominalism is a woefully incomplete way way of describing the relationship between ideas and sensible bodies. Personally, I think atheists adopt that position entirely because they cannot abide the conclusions of any kind of realism.

Ideas, novels, etc. Arew ALL based on the physical world. Ideas happen in brains, Novels have a variety of different aspects, but can be on paper, electronic patterns, etc...Language is a convention we humans use to communicate. Again, it is an aspect of our brains and biology..

More unfounded assertions. Physical objects, in themselves, have no meaning. They aren't about anything. It is one of the fatal flaws of the atheist worldview - the vain and unsupported belief that there can be meaning in an meaningless universe. Physical objects can carry meaning but meaning is in no way inherent in physical objects nor is meaning capable of arising in physical objects without vague appeals to the magical powers of "emergence".

Classes, properties, and descriptions are, once again, conventions.

How about "metallic?" Is that just a convention or does it apply to something real and objective about the world? Are trees metallic if everyone agrees to it?